VelveteenAmbush
Prime Intellect did nothing wrong
No bio...
User ID: 411
My point is less that the decision should rest with the parents, and more that it shouldn't rest with the child.
Sometimes we leave the decision with the parents... whether to attend a parochial school, whether to allow the child access to Instagram, etc.
Sometimes we decide for the family; children aren't allowed to have sex with adults, for example, regardless of what the children or their parents think about it.
What we never do (other than with this trans issue -- at least, I cannot think of any other examples) is leave decisions of momentous lifelong consequences fully up to the child, and attempt to disintermediate the parents in favor of the child's own judgment.
So arguments premised on a child's voluntary and insuperable consent in high-stakes decisionmaking seem rather anomalous.
cancer treatment either saves you or you die, you aren't expected to have regular chemotherapy for the rest of your life
Cancer treatment is extremely expensive and cancer patients (especially those caught after Stage I) are often medicalized for life even in the cases where they live for decades afterward.
Moreover what does the duration of the treatment matter? Why should the pharma company's incentives be different as between a therapeutic that is extremely expensive over the short term and a therapeutic that is moderately expensive over the long term, if the NPVs are the same?
Shouldn't your theory predict, for example, that pharma companies selling expensive therapeutics for lung cancer should oppose smoking cessation efforts?
Then the argument moves to, well isn't puberty blockers irrecoverable harm
By moving the argument to puberty blockers, are you agreeing that all gender confirming care for minors that is more aggressive or less reversible than puberty blockers should be banned?
Otherwise, I assume you'd move the argument to those instead, right?
What if the children just wanted their ears removed? This wouldn't render them deaf, just leave them visibly mutilated by prevailing standards. Is that irrecoverable harm? Who is to decide what constitutes harm, and what constitutes the realization of one's inner truth however aberrant by wider standards?
Plenty of companies are already doing that. Doubtful that Eli Lilly's contribution would move the needle much.
By the way, do you have the same reaction to companies that produce cancer drugs -- that they should invest in causing as much cancer as possible to expand their addressable market?
If you truly believe children should be empowered to make all important personal decisions for themselves, without interference, then how would you argue against pedophilia? Or are prohibitions of pedophilia likewise to be excluded from the eschaton, whatever that means?
Suppose an online fad were persuading children to have their left arms amputated, and the power of the state dedicated itself to facilitating the amputations and to retaliating against parents who tried to interfere. What argument against that public policy would you consider to be fair, if any?
A sterile kid with diabetes is going to get lifelong injections and have to adopt if they want kids but I wouldn't characterize that as a "vista of terrifying possibilities".
I actually think "terrifying" would be a pretty reasonable word if one were contemplating a scenario in which children were being persuaded at scale by niche online communities to become infertile diabetics for life and the government were employing the power of the state to prevent parents from protecting them.
voluntarily sterilize themselves
I don't want to engage with most of this analogy, but I think your view is impoverished if it doesn't account for children's questionable ability to provide informed consent, and the seeming purpose of the law in attenuating their parents' ability to act as stewards for their children's interests. The question of what is truly voluntary is the heart of the matter.
GPT4 is 3 months old
6 weeks, actually. It was announced on March 14.
If simple double-passing the prompt was sufficient, I imagine the developers would have figured it out a long time ago.
It is, and they have. But this requires twice as much inference, and GPT-4 is already very expensive compared to the set of internet operations that we intuitively consider in the same class. Then you need to compare the answers and determine whether they match, which requires either manual effort or a third prompt.
This tech just hasn't been around long enough to build products around it. But if and when our civilization gets around to building and iterating a dedicated commercial medical expert product from LLMs, I've little doubt that hallucination will be a solved problem, because the cost of running a whole bunch of parallel prompts and then a subsequent round of prompts to confirm their consistency will be negligible in proportion to the commercial value of the tool.
I don't see what conquered people has to do with anything given that losing a war doesn't suggest one is more predisposed to violence than the victor
It suggests, on average, that the conquered people are less fit than the conquerors.
HBD posits a partial reversion to the mean one generation after the selection event occurs. After that, there should be no further effect; the non-heritable components of the initial selection (including both shared and non-shared environmental components and test error from the selection event) will have washed out with the next generation, while the heritable component will remain forever.
If the American slave population was adversely selected in the first place -- African tribes selling their own convicts, misfits and conquered people to Western slavers -- then HBD provides an explanation why the group descended from them continues to underperform.
The entire affirmative action policy regime depends on the assumption that group disparities are a problem that can be rectified.
I think there's a redistributive justification too, as well as a representational justification, as well as a justification premised on the purported instrumental organizational benefits of diversity. I happen not to find any of those justifications persuasive, but affirmative action supporters do not have all of their eggs in the remediation basket.
because self-driving cars could completely disrupt it
Impossible. There just isn't enough road capacity to replace the NY subway system. Traffic in NYC is merely painful now, but that's because the subway exists and most people use it. If everyone tried to move to cars -- even assuming the parking problem away with self-driving rideshares -- the roads would become jammed to the point of complete dysfunction.
So, it seems that the city CAN tow his car; they just can't charge him for the costs of doing so.
So... they can tow it, but then they have to give it back for free and let him drive away with it as soon as it reaches the impound lot? What would be the point of that? Couldn't he just drive it right back to where they towed it from?
What fraction of parents do you think are actually reading these articles, or even seeing the headlines? I'd estimate less than 10%.
I know lots of people who maintain a healthy weight. I know many fewer people who were once obese but then slimmed down and maintained a healthy weight by dieting. It's far from clear from the data that "trying to diet" or "telling people to diet" is an effective intervention once they are already obese. It seems like something intrinsic to metabolism and appetite regulation is irreversibly broken at that point, and the only permanent solutions are gastric surgery and (now, hopefully) semaglutide and its analogues.
Cosigned. In particular:
-
The rate at which teenage girls are being transitioned is unsustainable and a reckoning is coming.
-
DeSantis is their next adversary, and he's able and prepared to go to war with the left over this issue. The NYT sees this coming and wants to eliminate their most vulnerable attack surfaces, which was never necessary against Trump's undisciplined ranting or other GOP candidates' ineffectiveness on cultural topics.
You've seen him argue that it's an existential threat because of left-wing bias?
Yes, EA has control over some funding and useful roles, but they created them and it's theirs you have no right to it without putting up with the weird community that made it possible.
But when you're giving preferential treatment to people who join your "polycule," you're basically in pure Harvey Weinstein territory. He could argue that he created those jobs too, but there's no principle that job creators get to exchange those jobs for sex.
The conflict is great for US interests. Russia is getting wrecked by sanctions, has become internationally isolated, has lost its natural gas exports to Europe, looks like a chump on the international stage, is getting brain drained. US has demonstrated the ability to fight a regional power to a standstill, and probably to an ultimate loss, with nothing but pocket change and outdated equipment -- not a single (official) boot on the ground, no modern armaments, just political will made manifest all the way across the globe with some military surplus and some military consultants. Europe is shivering but this is the price they pay for outsourcing their military might to the US; they are vassal states that must obey their imperial capital and now must pay down their past intransigence with interest. They have no agency here and they know it. So NATO has no reason to back down. I agree that Russia cannot back down; their politics are too invested in their sunk cost. They can threaten nuclear armageddon, but I think NATO does enough to prevent that by trying to avoid empowering Ukraine to directly attack Russian territory. Making further concessions is just capitulating to nuclear blackmail, and there's no limiting factor once that is established as precedent. I'd rather we didn't run that risk, but it was Putin's decision to put us on this path.
The only party that can end the conflict in the short term is Ukraine. But they understandably want to defend their homeland, and while they are losing their infrastructure, they are gaining a strong national identity. And I dunno, I'm not a student of Ukraine politics but I sure don't see any cracks in their resolve from where I'm sitting.
So yeah, it seems like the trajectory is pretty much locked in and we are just going to grind down Russia until they break, no matter the opinions of Orban and his fellow Putin stans. Maybe Russia "can't" back down, but they're going to have to at some point.
Totally fair. If one were to lecture New Zealand based on their aggregate statistics that they ought to follow (say) Norway's criminal justice practices to obtain Norway's more favorable outcomes, it seems like a pretty obvious response that one ought to control (at the very least!) for the presence of Maori people before attempting to draw policy conclusions from differences in raw population outcomes.
I'm open to evidence that any of those disproportions are as dramatic as the black/white gap in the US, if you have it. If not, this is just so much ducking and dodging.
Anyway, no matter; if you don't like focusing on blacks, then by all means draw a more finely targeted apples-to-apples demographic comparison. Compare Swedes to Swedish Americans, or white Canadians to white American descendants of Canadians. But I think we all know that those more finely targeted comparisons are going to put the lie to any attempt to pin the differential on some detail of the two countries' respective criminal codes and criminal justice practices.

Because those decisions are seen as so intrinsically damaging to the child that the decision to proceed should not be allowed at all. We take the same approach (correctly, IMO) with respect to the question of whether the child should be permitted to have sex with adults. We can disagree at the object level (i.e. whether in fact social transitions are damaging to the child), but if one accepts those states' belief at the object level for the sake of argument, then there is nothing anomalous about their policymaking approach to the matter.
More options
Context Copy link